Posted on 07/17/2002 12:47:25 PM PDT by dirtboy
The White House is reeling from allegations that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney engaged in business practices that are disturbingly similar to those of executives at Enron and WorldCom. Like administrations before it, this White House now must choose between serving the greater interests of the office of the presidency or the narrower goals of the current officeholder. If last week was any indication, Bush officials have chosen a dangerous path of personal devotion over public duty, a path that has led previous administrations to disaster.
The recent allegations - which may prove overblown under closer scrutiny - center on transactions by Bush and Cheney when they were executives at Harken Energy Corp. and Halliburton Co., respectively. Among the unproven allegations are insider trading, questionable personal loans and fraudulent dealings. The White House staff has put on a full-court press to refute these allegations of private misconduct. In doing so, the administration is drifting into the troubled waters in which the Clinton administration found itself...
Click here for the rest of the article, as this was originally published in the LA Slimes...
You must be lying; Demidog said nobody at Harken was even spoken to.
Bush will survive but the juries out on McCauliffe, Corzine, Mr and Mrs Daschle, Bob Rubin, Goldman Sachs and of course my personal favorites, the Clintons who are portrayed on tv now by the Osbornes.
Where does the Constitution authorize funding of sports stadiums?
Or is the enemy within?
I choose the latter.
When the damned voters approve it.
LOL, thanks I was having a hard time trying to refute that one.
Because I believe that it is obvious that he did. Bush's waiving of privilege and having his lawyer answer questions for him is not an exhoneration by a long shot.
LOL. I guess funding of private corporations by taxpayers is right up there next to the part where it guarantees the states a "republican form of government."
You must be illiterate. I didn't say that. I said that no officers of Harken were questioned.
LOL. When the public decides to vote that your car be given to the salvation army, you won't object on the grounds that only the legislatures are authorized to make laws. That would be too consistent with the constitution.
Gee, what do I know. Not much. Heck, whatever common stock Cheney or Bush had prior to serving the greater good is really just their private life, and why can't we all just move on? Groovey baby, whatever!
It is to me. Go away if you don't like what I say.
There were 250,000 people in the City of Arlington (which financed the stadium) in 1992 (when the vote was held). Less than 50% voted, the vote was 65-35 in favor.
So there were no "hundreds of thousands" who opposed the stadium.
The question should be "Where does the Constitution authorize Federal funding of sports stadiums?".
There's nothing illegal about it, though it's just plain wrong - they're ripoffs. But if the people want 'em in Texas, I ain't gonna stop 'em.
Well it's sure obvious that Texas doesn't invest much in education.
The Texas Constitution
The Legislature shall have no power to make any grant or authorize the making of any grant of public moneys to any individual, association of individuals, municipal or other corporations whatsoever; provided that the provisions of this Section shall not be construed so as to prevent the grant of aid in cases of public calamity. (Amended Nov. 6, 1894, Nov. 1, 1898, Nov. 8, 1904, Nov. 8, 1910, Nov. 5, 1912, Nov. 4, 1924, Nov. 6, 1928, Nov. 5, 1968, and Nov. 2, 1999.)
Article 3 - LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 51 - GRANTS OF PUBLIC MONEY PROHIBITED; EXCEPTIONS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.